High court eyes gay marriage

March 27, 2013

Supreme CourtHigh-level legal arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the fate of this state’s Proposition 8 appear to be sharply dividing justices. (San Jose Mercury News)

The voter-approved same-sex marriage ban marks the first time the high court has needed to address the gay marriage issue, which deeply splits the nation as well.

An hour of arguments and questions from justices showed the eventual decision, expected sometime in June, will reflect this division, according to reporters in the jammed Washington, D.C., courtroom.

Options may be available that could pave the way for gay marriage unions in California by leaving intact previous lower court rulings of unconstitutionality.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments


Bill O’Reilly of Faux News, said Tuesday that the opponents of same-sex marriage have been unable to do anything but “thump the Bible” in their arguments. Subsequently, “Rush-to-judgement” Limbaugh said that O’Reilly marginalized a good portion of Faux New’s audience as not having a compelling argument and just being a bunch of Bible thumpers.

Barring the continued imploding of the GOP on other topics as well, if the bible thumpers of mention are going to bring the bible into the equation for their views on gay marriage, then they’re going to have to bring ALL of the bible, I repeat, ALL of the bible into the mix for their godly views, period!

“Death to homosexuals, their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:13)

“Because of the homosexuals vile acts, they are worthy of death” (Romans 1:18-32)

“God kills homosexuals in Sodom and Gomorra” (Genesis 19:24-25).

“Homosexuals are not allowed in church.” (Deut. 23:17-18)

“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” ( Proverbs 30:5-6 )

Since EVERY word of God is pure, then how does the Christian adherent suppose to act in relation to biblical axioms that tells them that the homosexual should be put to death, or is worthy of death?

For those that continue to erroneously proffer that what I bring forth relative to the story at hand is “religious bashing”, then the only way to eliminate this perceived notion is to remove all bibles in the world. This is because the bible bashes itself on a continuos basis by just reading it in it’s historical context.

I cannot believe how backwards so many people are on the issue of same sex marriage; exactly how will having same sex couples being married affect you, either as an individual or as part of a heterosexual couple? And why do those who find same sex marriage so objectionable have to bring up polygamy or nuts trying to marry their horse or dog?

Marriage is a legal contract, period. My wife has the legal right to make decisions for me if I cannot do so, and I have that same right for her should she ever not be able to communicate. Yes, I was married in a church, yes, there was a minister there, BUT there were also certain legal arrangements that had to be made, legal requirements that had to be met. If you do not believe that a marriage is a legal contract, try dissolving one or getting a divorce; do you go to church or to a lawyer? Marriage is a legal matter, and as such, to deny anyone the ability to have all of those same rights due to their gender is discrimination, plain and simple. And really, stop with the polygamy and human/animal marriage comparisons; marriage is currently a legal arrangement between 2 (only), consenting, adults, period. In some eight states, the gender of the two individuals does not matter at all, and those marriages need to be recognized by the federal government so those individuals can file their taxes in the same manner as other married couples as well as be eligible for all other recognitions that all other married couples currently receive by the federal government.

If a particular state does not want to legalize same sex marriage, that should be a “states rights” issue, and conversely, if a state wants to allow same sex marriages, that should also be a states rights issue; the federal government has no ability to dictate to any state how that state can make laws, as long as those laws do not violate the Constitution, which Prop 8 does. To those who say that the wishes of the voters should be respected, how can you square that notion that taking away a civil right from one class of citizens should be decided by other citizens? Rights should be expanded, not reduced.


“marriage” is a centuries old religious ceremony celebrating the union of a man and a woman, allowing them the approved right by the church to live together and procreate in the eyes of society and the church. This tradition usually was performed after approval of both families and parents had been given.

A civil union is a legal contract between any two parties, much like the term “common law” spouse.

The Bill of Rights already endows all peoples regardless of race, religion or sex with “unalienable Rights”…

That being said, I do not care what two adults want to do in their own home or if they choose to live together and I firmly believe in equality for all peoples. Everyone has the same rights…

But, I do believe this entire issue is a matter of changing word descriptions describing the relationship between same sex (or other non traditional partners) is what is behind this. And where is the line drawn?

Can families members “marry” each other, can men “marry” young boys, how about polygamy, how about animals?

IMHO, the severe drop in ethics, morals and character in the last 50 years allowing any form of behavior be perceived as normal and promoted by the hugh increase in liberal news and social media is driving this today. Sensationalism sells newspapers and TV time.

How many LGBT are there in the USA compared to the population of 300 million?

“Drawing on information from four recent national and two state-level population-based surveys, the analyses suggest that there are more than 8 million adults in the US who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual, comprising 3.5% of the adult population. ”


“Can families members “marry” each other, can men “marry” young boys, how about polygamy, how about animals?” I don’t wish to be rude, but what a load of cr@p; today, in the USA, marriage is for TWO (only), consenting (animals cannot consent, legally minors cannot either) unrelated (first cousins, siblings, parents and off-spring, etc, are not allowed to marry each other now- how, or why would that even be an item for discussion?) adults ( of legal age to give consent). The only thing up for discussion is if the court should decide in looking at DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) is whether or not the federal government should be REQUIRED to recognize the marriages of same sex couples in those states where they are currently legal. Those same sex couples should be able to file joint tax returns, attend to each other in federal hospitals, if one of them is in the military the other should be eligible for all the normal benefits other married couples have access to. The other question the Supreme Court is deciding is whether or not Prop 8 in California was a legally permitted under the Constitution since Prop 8 essentially removed or diminished certain rights for certain people; same sex couples had the “right” to marry prior to the passage of Prop 8 and that right was taken away by the passage of Prop 8 – majority vote or not, taking away a right should not be left up to a vote of the people, period.


“marriage” has been, over the centuries, a legal arrangement where a bride is essentially “sold” to her groom via dowery that the bride’s family put up as a payment for the husband (groom) to “take possession of” and therefore the responsibility for that woman. In various countries, over various historical times, women were essentially the “property” of the husband and he could treat her in any manner he wished to; if he wanted to beat her, no one could stop him; if he wanted to rape her, no one could say anything. The religious aspect of marriage has always accompanied the legal aspect of that marriage. Logically you could say that marriage has evolved over the centuries to what we have come to accept is the definition today, BUT, evolution is rarely static, change keeps happening, and to remove the requirement that the two persons wishing to form a union have to be of the opposite gender is merely another step in firming up the rights of all people to be equal under the eyes of the law.

You mentioned the Bill of Rights endowing all people with “unalienable Rights”, correct? Explain to me then how denying two persons of the same gender to have all the same rights as two people of the opposite gender shouldn’t be prohibited by that same Bill of Rights.

It’s a shame the Civil Rights Act of 1964 didn’t adequately address the issue of gay rights.Here we are almost 50 years later, just as divided as a nation, as we were then.

This bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and hatred has to end. Life is too short…and too precious.

Because it opens a door that most do not want open; that is, the door to polygamy and marrying anything/anyone. I mean, why stop at homosexuality? Obviously, the overton window shifted in favor of homosexuals; can we not forsee where it may shift once it is acceptable for homosexuals to marry? For or Against it, it is what the “next logical step” will be.

Odd how the left, who is usually emotion-based, get’s all logical on this issue (which is usually the right’s m.o.); funny how that reversed for this issue.

(forgot to add, “and the right gets all emotion-based on this”)…

Isn’t it interesting that there was a time in American history when a good deal of the population felt the same way about freeing the slaves, and subsequently establishing what is known as civil rights.

Lynchings, murders, church bombings, kidnappings, and terrorism against Blacks, simply because they had been granted freedom. I guess it was a “door” American’s didn’t want opened.

What would the next “logical step” be, the right to vote? Or eat in the same establishment as whites, or play professional baseball someday?

Your fear of gay rights mirrors those same thoughts and feelings American’s once had towards Blacks. Isn’t it time we ended this nonsense?

Not even the same thing, I can pick a black slave out of a group of 100 people, but I would be hard pressed to pick out a “married” gay couple.

The perceived discrimination is just that, perceived.

And as they say…perception is everything.

I can’t wait until polygamy is being fought for as a “right” as well… then maybe people will ask where their right to marry children are… or their pets… It would be so much easier if we all just became birthing units for the state. Something like 1984. Yeah, that’d be awesome.

r0y we already have laws that protect children and pets, mormons have to wait until they get to heaven to get their polygamy back, 1984 is a story ,it never happened it was all made up. Please do go on though .

There already is a quiet, small but growing polygamous movement in the United States. Their concerns will need to be addressed one day.

Concerns or rights? Everything is a “right” today! Christmas (Happy Holidays) – gone, “Easter Egg Hunt” (Egg Hunt) – gone, Constituti on and Bill of Rights- gone, Property Rights – gone, Americanism – gone, Religious Rights – gone, Capitalism – gone, etc. etc. etc. This is no longer the America I love and respect.

I thought everyone getting married was gay and merry? So now we pay the courts so that two truck drivers can get married too? I’m confused, so votes don’t count unless the vocal minority says they do?

This must be why the courts are so busy that theives, banksters and nonprofits are running wild.